News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
News
Elon Musk’s Grok AI to be used in U.S. War Department’s bespoke AI platform
The partnership aims to provide advanced capabilities to 3 million military and civilian personnel.
The U.S. Department of War announced Monday an agreement with Elon Musk’s xAI to embed the company’s frontier artificial intelligence systems, powered by the Grok family of models, into the department’s bespoke AI platform GenAI.mil.
The partnership aims to provide advanced capabilities to 3 million military and civilian personnel, with initial deployment targeted for early 2026 at Impact Level 5 (IL5) for secure handling of Controlled Unclassified Information.
xAI Integration
As noted by the War Department’s press release, GenAI.mil, its bespoke AI platform, will gain xAI for the Government’s suite of tools, which enable real-time global insights from the X platform for “decisive information advantage.” The rollout builds on xAI’s July launch of products for U.S. government customers, including federal, state, local, and national security use cases.
“Targeted for initial deployment in early 2026, this integration will allow all military and civilian personnel to use xAI’s capabilities at Impact Level 5 (IL5), enabling the secure handling of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in daily workflows. Users will also gain access to real‑time global insights from the X platform, providing War Department personnel with a decisive information advantage,” the Department of War wrote in a press release.
Strategic advantages
The deal marks another step in the Department of War’s efforts to use cutting-edge AI in its operations. xAI, for its part, highlighted that its tools can support administrative tasks at the federal, state and local levels, as well as “critical mission use cases” at the front line of military operations.
“The War Department will continue scaling an AI ecosystem built for speed, security, and decision superiority. Newly IL5-certified capabilities will empower every aspect of the Department’s workforce, turning AI into a daily operational asset. This announcement marks another milestone in America’s AI revolution, and the War Department is driving that momentum forward,” the War Department noted.
News
Tesla FSD (Supervised) v14.2.2 starts rolling out
The update focuses on smoother real-world performance, better obstacle awareness, and precise end-of-trip routing, among other improvements.
Tesla has started rolling out Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.2.2, bringing further refinements to its most advanced driver-assist system. The new FSD update focuses on smoother real-world performance, better obstacle awareness, and precise end-of-trip routing, among other improvements.
Key FSD v14.2.2 improvements
As noted by Not a Tesla App, FSD v14.2.2 upgrades the vision encoder neural network with higher resolution features, enhancing detection of emergency vehicles, road obstacles, and human gestures. New Arrival Options let users select preferred drop-off styles, such as Parking Lot, Street, Driveway, Parking Garage, or Curbside, with the navigation pin automatically adjusting to the user’s ideal spot for precision.
Other additions include pulling over for emergency vehicles, real-time vision-based detours for blocked roads, improved gate and debris handling, and extreme Speed Profiles for customized driving styles. Reliability gains cover fault recovery, residue alerts on the windshield, and automatic narrow-field camera washing for new 2026 Model Y units.
FSD v14.2.2 also boosts unprotected turns, lane changes, cut-ins, and school bus scenarios, among other things. Tesla also noted that users’ FSD statistics will be saved under Controls > Autopilot, which should help drivers easily view how much they are using FSD in their daily drives.
Key FSD v14.2.2 release notes
Full Self-Driving (Supervised) v14.2.2 includes:
- Upgraded the neural network vision encoder, leveraging higher resolution features to further improve scenarios like handling emergency vehicles, obstacles on the road, and human gestures.
- Added Arrival Options for you to select where FSD should park: in a Parking Lot, on the Street, in a Driveway, in a Parking Garage, or at the Curbside.
- Added handling to pull over or yield for emergency vehicles (e.g. police cars, fire trucks, ambulances).
- Added navigation and routing into the vision-based neural network for real-time handling of blocked roads and detours.
- Added additional Speed Profile to further customize driving style preference.
- Improved handling for static and dynamic gates.
- Improved offsetting for road debris (e.g. tires, tree branches, boxes).
- Improve handling of several scenarios, including unprotected turns, lane changes, vehicle cut-ins, and school buses.
- Improved FSD’s ability to manage system faults and recover smoothly from degraded operation for enhanced reliability.
- Added alerting for residue build-up on interior windshield that may impact front camera visibility. If affected, visit Service for cleaning!
- Added automatic narrow field washing to provide rapid and efficient front camera self-cleaning, and optimize aerodynamics wash at higher vehicle speed.
- Camera visibility can lead to increased attention monitoring sensitivity.
Upcoming Improvements:
- Overall smoothness and sentience.
- Parking spot selection and parking quality.
News
Tesla is not sparing any expense in ensuring the Cybercab is safe
Images shared by the longtime watcher showed 16 Cybercab prototypes parked near Giga Texas’ dedicated crash test facility.
The Tesla Cybercab could very well be the safest taxi on the road when it is released and deployed for public use. This was, at least, hinted at by the intensive safety tests that Tesla seems to be putting the autonomous two-seater through at its Giga Texas crash test facility.
Intensive crash tests
As per recent images from longtime Giga Texas watcher and drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer, Tesla seems to be very busy crash testing Cybercab units. Images shared by the longtime watcher showed 16 Cybercab prototypes parked near Giga Texas’ dedicated crash test facility just before the holidays.
Tegtmeyer’s aerial photos showed the prototypes clustered outside the factory’s testing building. Some uncovered Cybercabs showed notable damage and one even had its airbags engaged. With Cybercab production expected to start in about 130 days, it appears that Tesla is very busy ensuring that its autonomous two-seater ends up becoming the safest taxi on public roads.
Prioritizing safety
With no human driver controls, the Cybercab demands exceptional active and passive safety systems to protect occupants in any scenario. Considering Tesla’s reputation, it is then understandable that the company seems to be sparing no expense in ensuring that the Cybercab is as safe as possible.
Tesla’s focus on safety was recently highlighted when the Cybertruck achieved a Top Safety Pick+ rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). This was a notable victory for the Cybertruck as critics have long claimed that the vehicle will be one of, if not the, most unsafe truck on the road due to its appearance. The vehicle’s Top Safety Pick+ rating, if any, simply proved that Tesla never neglects to make its cars as safe as possible, and that definitely includes the Cybercab.
Elon Musk’s Grok AI to be used in U.S. War Department’s bespoke AI platform
Tesla FSD (Supervised) v14.2.2 starts rolling out
